Petition For Crime Question (1 Viewer)

[thorrnydevil]

My teacher and principal have already written letters to the BoS.

They where pissed.

 

[Parissi]

The dot point

H4.1 analyses specific problems
encountered in gaining
access to the legal system

is simply not specific enough.

The broadness of the dot-point meant that the question easily fitted the guidlines.
And so they are right to argue that point, the question is easily related to the syllabus. The problem lies in the fact that the "specific problems" are not specified. Those who were able to answer the question (and i Garantee they are a minority) were able to do so because they picked that one current topical issue. With the state of the nation at the momemt that dot point could have applied to almost every minority and even the majority. To argue that those who didnt specificly study juveniles are at fault is pety.

And clairebare, we're not trying to organise a live eight here. Its just a petition. A lot of the legal studies student will usually be applying for popular uni-courses eg Arts/Law and due to the demand it can come down to half marks. just because you can quote starving children in africa doesnt make u right, we're high school students we believe we've been wronged and we are excersing our right to protest this. If you would instead like to sponsor a child and work for the doll all the best to you. You'll be helping the global community and theres nothing wrong with that. I support you in that endeavour but there no need to be ethnocentric, dont go trying to force you vallues on others.

Your right about the boards ineptitude though, it was their mistake, we're not going to let them get away with it, hopefully. I do think a written petition sent out to schools and then to BoS would be more effective though, it would allow us to go get the signatures of class mates who dont use this sight as well as make the submissions more valid. The state goverment is going to need all the help it can get in the next election and the youth vote could easily be their way to beat the torries. Lets give them an oppurtunity to win our support.

If you can find points in the syllabus that detail any of these 'specific problems' even if their not juvenile, correct me, im not afraid to admit i was wrong on that account. It does not change the fact that the syllabus failed to clearly convey its intended point to the majority of students undertaking the course, which is what its their for. The marks will probably get scaled accordingly but this is a back up, it is better to show we will fight them, even if it only serves to help future generations.

 

[nedzelic]

T.F

Albion Park High School

 

[nedzelic]

Whilst I dont particularly feel like weighing into this debate the constant whinging about crime is so unnecessary. The 7 mark question was actually quite easy to answer. Plus if you aren't up to date so to speak with current social justice issues and especially juvenile justice issues then what are you doing in Legal studies. The one thing that can possibly give any one a case for whinging is that the HSC does not allow to much thought outside the syllabus for once they give us a question that is not a straight dot point and we have a massive cry. Quite frankly That legal paper was bloody good and Im sorry but perhaps it is to bad for those who cannot think for themselves without a syllabus study guide.

you're a cock-face

 

[Captain Karl]

The question was supposed to throw people off. Its one of those questions designed so that the band 6 people can (generally) differentiate themselves from the lower bands. They have one in every test and it always gets teachers looking through the syllabus to see where it came in. Last year the hard part was changing the short answer/mc format in regards to law and society/human rights. The idea was it was supposed to be hard and only the top students would be able to answer it fully. Others will probably get some marks for it provided they actually wrote something. I wouldn't worry about it if i were any of you

 

[Not-That-Bright]

The broadness of the dot-point meant that the question easily fitted the guidlines.
And so they are right to argue that point, the question is easily related to the syllabus. The problem lies in the fact that the "specific problems" are not specified. Those who were able to answer the question (and i Garantee they are a minority) were able to do so because they picked that one current topical issue. With the state of the nation at the momemt that dot point could have applied to almost every minority and even the majority. To argue that those who didnt specificly study juveniles are at fault is pety.

But I'm fairly sure all students are taught accessibility problems, and you just write them all down. If you read my whole post you would see that I covered the problem of specifics, even if I didn't know about specific juvenile problems.. I could quite easily write down every general accessibility issue that I can remember, and since you only gain marks (not lose marks) I would have ended up with a high mark. Especially since they are now taken this into account.

 

[smileybubbles]

Ok...I am a student that did the legal studies exam. Frankly, I think the questions were decent in determining the difference between the good students and the average students. The two questions were both relating to the dot point on the effectiveness of the law. They fitted into the part on individuals. There is no use complaining that there was no way we could have predicted that question because if you think about yr 11 there was a list of particular focus groups e.g. migrants, mentally and physically disabled, youth, etc. Technically, this question could have fitted into the yr 11 which, I believe, the BoS is allowed to do.

I'm not saying that I'll get full marks for those questions, I'm simply saying that there is no use whinging about it because they were fair questions that were in the syllabus. To those people that didnt even attempt it...that was silly...you've just thrown away 19 marks. You should have at least tried for a few.

Anyway, they're my thoughts.

 

[Captain Karl]

Theres still some valid arguments in the rest of the post but. If you wrote nothing dont expect any special treatment - that was stupid. The questions were supposed to be hard but if you thought about it would've been easy to gain at least a few marks. As Not-That-Bright said, even if you just wrote all the general accessibility issues etc in the question youd get a fair mark. You wouldnt necessarily have had to study juveniles specifically to answer it

 

[Captain Karl]

Now you're just being stupid for the sake of an argument. They didnt ask us a physics question because it wasnt a physics test. Maybe you're in the wrong topic?
Accessibility is in the LEGAL STUDIES syllabus, so no matter how obscure it was you could answer it using your knowledge if LEGAL STUDIES.
As I said before, it was supposed to be a hard question to try to separate the band 6 people from everyone else.
I dont know how you view my logic but I can assure you that it wouldnt apply to your situation.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

No, you are being stupid. They asked a question which a HELL of a lot of people would have no clue how to answer... which.. isn't... FAIR no matter what you say.

Access to justice is in the syllabus, so if people don't know how to answer it they haven't followed the syllabus - it is fair. All that it asked was a question that is in the syllabus, to be applied to juveniles.. which just meant you could have answered the question and customised it slightly without knowing any real specifics.

In fact, i imagine if you wrote down everything you learnt from access to justice in general you would have recieved full marks.

 

[Captain Karl]

No, you are being stupid. They asked a question which a HELL of a lot of people would have no clue how to answer... which.. isn't... FAIR no matter what you say.

Your arguement that "it wasn't a physics test" is missing the point..

Why didn't they ask a question from a 4th year university law degree then? That's legal studies.. There.. I narrowed the representation for you small brain to be able to understand.

If you read it properly....

It was a question that mostly only band 6 people were supposed to be able to answer well. therefore the majority would have trouble answering it. The goal of the test is to get a range of marks from band 1 to band 6.

I think it is you who is missing the point. The question was from a part of the legal studies syllabus and so is fair, even if it was hard.
No need to resort to petty "small brain" insults mate, its just a discussion. I think someone has a very short temper...

 

[Lozacious]

Access to justice is in the syllabus, so if people don't know how to answer it they haven't followed the syllabus - it is fair. All that it asked was a question that is in the syllabus, to be applied to juveniles.. which just meant you could have answered the question and customised it slightly without knowing any real specifics.

In fact, i imagine if you wrote down everything you learnt from access to justice in general you would have recieved full marks.

ssssssssssssssssssssss

 

[Captain Karl]

Lozacious, if you dont want to be part of an open forum then just keep it to yourself.
Not-That-Bright actually posted those views a while ago, and I was simply agreeing.
This forum is not designed to be a one-on-one name-calling fight

 

[Lozacious]

Lozacious, if you dont want to be part of an open forum then just keep it to yourself.
Not-That-Bright actually posted those views a while ago, and I was simply agreeing.
This forum is not designed to be a one-on-one name-calling fight

No i agree, people should be able to answer questions about things they've never even heard of before. That's what the HSC is all about.

 

[nedzelic]

yeah i have no idea how you two can claim it was a fair dinkum question. sure, it may have been aimed at band 6 students, but for every question is meant to be made to give each student a chance to get full marks - other wise it is unfair and unequatable. for instance, if they asked a question about the issues that people from rose bay faced, it would benefit them.
and in nay case, hey can yous come here and say 'if you put that...and this...you'd probabaly get full marks'. how on earth would you know? and you will never know what you got for that question. it was merely pot luck as no one knew what they were after. hey, it might turn out that most of the state got band 5s and 6s, becasue we all answered it so well - but only by luck and flook. everyone ahs seemed to just put everything that saw to be relevant, whereas for other questions in othre HSC papers, it is more clear of what ytou need to put in (b/c it's in the SYLLABUS - directly) and so you can apply your knowledge. obviously L.S isn't like some other subjects like PD/H/PE where many questions are just like direct replicas of the syllabus dot points and all you have to do is copy it out, but the questions are never usually that vague
so it asking that question, under your arguments (on that accessibilty and whatnot is in the syl) is like asking, say, um...i can't even come up with an example (post HSC dead brain) but i will think of one and post in good time

 

[Captain Karl]

Every student still had the chance to get full marks (or at least some marks) in that question as long as they knew how to apply their knowledge to the situation.
To say that not everyone had the chance to get full marks in any question is a big statement unless it was completely unrelated to the syllabus.

A question can be both though and fair at the same time.

Take mathematics for example. That test is designed so that not everybody will get 100% in order to acheive proper scaling for 3- and 4-unit people.

People are only giving their opinions here, thats why they say "you'll probably get full marks" or "you'll probably score well". Nobody really knows for sure yet.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

yeah i have no idea how you two can claim it was a fair dinkum question. sure, it may have been aimed at band 6 students, but for every question is meant to be made to give each student a chance to get full marks - other wise it is unfair and unequatable. for instance, if they asked a question about the issues that people from rose bay faced, it would benefit them.
and in nay case, hey can yous come here and say 'if you put that...and this...you'd probabaly get full marks'. how on earth would you know? and you will never know what you got for that question. it was merely pot luck as no one knew what they were after. hey, it might turn out that most of the state got band 5s and 6s, becasue we all answered it so well - but only by luck and flook. everyone ahs seemed to just put everything that saw to be relevant, whereas for other questions in othre HSC papers, it is more clear of what ytou need to put in (b/c it's in the SYLLABUS - directly) and so you can apply your knowledge. obviously L.S isn't like some other subjects like PD/H/PE where many questions are just like direct replicas of the syllabus dot points and all you have to do is copy it out, but the questions are never usually that vague
so it asking that question, under your arguments (on that accessibilty and whatnot is in the syl) is like asking, say, um...i can't even come up with an example (post HSC dead brain) but i will think of one and post in good time

Access to justice is in the syllabus clearly.
If you had written a general access to justice answer, I can't imagine you not recieving decent marks.

 

[DarkPrince_87]

ok well im really getting sick of these arguments, and reading about them, in my opinion (this coming from a person who has nvr read the syllabus and not knowing anything about it till after the test) the question was unfair, from what ive read its not in the syllabus (lol someone gonna yell at me coz i dont even know if its true) but im the kinda person who read a text book and summarised the whole thing into 20 pages, i re-read this over and over again so i knew it fairly well, i read another text book all the way thru and got some summaries of this site, now i was all prepared for almost anything they through at me, i was expecint a crime question where u had to name defences to situations outlining why, and that kinda questions, this question totally threw me off, i had no hard hitting facts to propose any decent arguments because i didnt read about it, i only wrote 2 pages for the question, the only reason why i wrote so much because i did family as an option and as i mentioned i memorised everything and a few legislations came in handy here, but for the people who didnt do family are at a real disadvantage and probly knew nothing, the stimulus wasnt handy at all really for the last questions, usually its very handy but no so much this year, all im really trying to say without causing many arguments coz im dumb and stuff is people have a right to complain, it wasnt in the text books (well not in that much detail for 7 marks anyway), so in reality the only way your really going to get top marks for it is if you actually did that minority group out of 100's to chose from and got lucky or u studied family law intensively...im sure they will adjust the marking scale for that question since not so many people would of done real good in that question so im hoping for a 4-5/7 for it....and all i mentioned was young protection act and a few other limited things...so yeh just back off the people who want to complain they have every right to, theres no need fore you to come into a petition which several hundreds of people agree with (probly more then half of the legal studies cohort more or not found it hard) all agree with and tell them to get over it and stop their winging just because u did good, if u were in the other boat and found the question hard there is no doubt you would be really pissed off as well, and yes i am a band 5-6 student i found the question pretty damn hard and it was rediculous......wow i have dragged on alot here, hope someone actually reads it as it took me like 5 mins to type...neway im off to study for business studies coz i know jack all

 

[Captain Karl]

I didnt do family or study juveniles as a focus area. I'm not claiming that I did well in answering the question or that it wasnt a hard question. In fact I'm not expecting to get full marks for it.
It was supposed to be hard. Most people were supposed to find it hard to answer.
I havent told anybody to stop whinging about it. I merely said that i thought the question was tough but fair.
It was in the syllabus so it was fair. It was an obscure question so it was hard.

 

[DarkPrince_87]

wasnt necessarily aimed at you, the question was hard and i agree that it was spose to differentiate the band 6's but i believe the dot in the syllabus that referred to this question was minority groups and as you know there are hundreds of examples of these